9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Determination of whether the application for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act was barred by limitation. Analysis: 1. The case involved a contract between the parties dated 7th September, 1974, for the supply of Allumina Ferric of I.C.I specification. Disputes arose, leading to the appellant appointing an Arbitrator on 12.9.1976. After failed negotiations, an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act was filed before the Calcutta High Court on 22.12.1977, which directed the appellant to file the application before the appropriate court. The final application was filed before the Subordinate Judge, Ranchi on 9.8.1978, resulting in the appointment of an Arbitrator on 18.9.1979. 2. The Arbitrator issued an award for a small amount, leading to the respondent filing a revision before the High Court, challenging the application under Section 8 as being barred by limitation. The High Court held the application barred by limitation, preventing the appointment of an Arbitrator. The key issue in the appeal was to determine whether the application under Section 8 was indeed time-barred. 3. The relevant Article of the Limitation Act, Article 137, was crucial in determining the limitation period for the application. The Court emphasized the requirements under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, which necessitated that parties do not concur in the appointment of an Arbitrator within 15 days of notice for the Court to intervene and make an appointment. 4. Referring to a previous decision, the Court highlighted that the cause of action for the application under Section 8 arises when the other party fails to concur in the appointment of an Arbitrator within the specified time frame. In this case, both applications made by the appellant were within the prescribed period under Article 137, rendering the High Court's limitation ruling incorrect. 5. The Court rejected the respondent's argument that the limitation period should start from the contract's expiry date, emphasizing that the requirements of Section 8 must be met before limitation commences. Additionally, the Court declined to examine the contention that the claims before the Arbitrator were time-barred, as the relevant details and disputes were not presented during the proceedings. 6. Ultimately, the Court set aside the High Court's order, reinstating the Sub-Judge's decision. With the award already made and filed, the concerned parties were directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed without any costs imposed.
|
